Never miss a post! Enter your email address below to subscribe today.

Thursday, May 31, 2012

The prosecution has more particularly identified the laws it will use to prosecute Joseph A. Lewis, II and Salem Alshdaifat, both indicted last year by a New York federal grand jury for crimes relating to alleged antiquities trafficking. Earlier this month, Chief Magistrate Steven M. Gold denied the defendants' motion for a bill of particulars. However, the court ordered government attorneys to further crystallize the laws it would rely on during trial.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York, in part, explained the following in a recent letter to the court:

"The Indictment alleges that the defendants acted contrary to law by providing Customs with false declarations of county of origin, seller, consignee and purchaser; providing Customs with vague and misleading descriptions of shipments' contents; failing to declare that multiple shipments contained a single purchase or to declare the full value of that purchase; and failing to file entry on international mail shipments, and accordingly, failing to make required declarations regarding those shipments. . . . The applicable Customs regulations that were violated by the above-described conduct are contained in Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 141 (“Entry of Merchandise”), Part 142 (“Entry Process”), Part 143, Subpart C (“Informal Entry”), and Part 145 (“Mail Importations”). . . . "

"In addition, by making material false statements to Customs, the charged conduct was contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 542 (“Entry of Goods by Means of False Statements”). See, e.g., United States v. An Antique Platter of Gold, 184 F.3d 131, 134-37 (2d Cir. 1999)(finding that a false declaration regarding an item’s country of origin violated Section 542, and the importation was therefore “contrary to law” for purposes of forfeiture of that item pursuant to Section 545)."

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Christopher Kortlander's new attorneys yesterday filed a long awaited objection to the government's motion to dismiss filed in January. Kortlander, along with his associated business entities (e.g. The Custer Battlefield Museum, Inc. in Montana), sued the government in the United States Court of Federal Claims once prosecutors declined to prosecute him for allegations of dealing with federally historical artifacts and eagle feathers. A federal district court in Montana dismissed a separate
lawsuit against a Bureau of Land Management agent in 2011.

Attorneys for the United States filed a motion to dismiss Kortlander's
tort, criminal, and constitutional law claims. They
argued that Kortlander's case lacks jurisdiction,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, fails to meet
the statute of limitations, and fails to meet certain pleading
standards. Kortlander objects to the government's claims.

Kortlander's lawyers argue that federal agents seized over $34 million of merchandise, including "historical relics," and that the government will not give it back. Kortlander therefore wants compensation. His attorneys argue that the seizure of the property is an unconstitutional taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. They add that the lawsuit was filed properly in court and brought in the time permitted by the statute of limitations.

The Blue Star Museums program is a collaboration between the National Endowment of the Arts, Blue Star Families and the U.S. Department of Defense. Find a complete listing of participating cultural institutions here.

Monday, May 21, 2012

"In general, defendants' motion for a bill of particulars is denied ...." That was the order of Chief Magistrate Steven M. Gold in the alleged antiquities trafficking cases of Joseph A. Lewis, II and Salem Alshdaifat. Together with Mousa Khouli and Ayman Ramadan, the defendants were indicted by a New York federal grand jury in 2011. Lewis and Alshdaifat deny the charges. Khouli pleaded guilty to the charges in April. Ramadan remains a fugitive from justice.

Cultural property seized in U.S. v. Khouli et al.Courtesy ICE

On April 11, 2012 co-defendants Lewis and Alshdaifat submitted a bill of particulars requesting more specific discovery from the prosecution. The prosecution objected, saying "the government has already provided more than the law requires."

After a hearing last Friday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled against the defendants "with the exception that the United States shall, by May 25, 2012, identify any regulations, treaty provisions, or foreign laws it will rely on at trial as 'laws' in connection with the charge that defendants 'fraudulently or knowingly import[ed or brought] into the United States, any merchandise, contrary to law' in violation of 18 USC 545."

18 USC 545 is the federal smuggling statute. That law states in relevant part:

"Whoever fraudulently or knowingly imports or brings into the United States, any merchandise contrary to law, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise after importation, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Proof of defendant's possession of such goods, unless explained to the satisfaction of the jury, shall be deemed evidence sufficient to authorize conviction for violation of this section."

Prosecutors in the case of United States v. Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer today filed a Reply in Support of Its Motion to Reconsider. The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri hopes to reverse a judge's April dismissal of the case. The government ultimately seeks to forfeit the allegedly stolen Ka Nefer Nefer mummy mask located at the St. Louis Art Museum (SLAM) and return it to Egypt. SLAM denies that the mask is stolen and asserts ownership over the artifact.

The museum filed an objection earlier this week to the government's motion requesting the judge to reconsider the dismissal of the case. Today's pleading by the government responds to the museum's objection.

The government says that it should be permitted to amend its original complaint if the court continues to uphold its dismissal order. The prosecution goes on to reveal more specific allegations that it would articulate in a revised complaint:

"To the extent ... that a fuller explanation of the new allegations to be incorporated into an amended complaint would aid the Court in assessing the United States’ request for time to seek leave to amend, the United States is glad to elaborate. If deemed necessary by the Court, the United States' proposed amended complaint would:

• expressly allege that the Mask was stolen from box number fifty-four at Saqqara between 1966 and 1973;

• recite the provisions of the controlling Egyptian cultural patrimony law, Law No. 215, which provides that ancient artifacts excavated after 1951 are the national property of the Republic of Egypt, and establish the absence of any facts that would authorize the Museum’s ownership of the Mask under Egyptian law;

• summarize the relevant Egyptian export laws, which required application to be made to the Egyptian government before the Mask could be exported from Egypt, and allege the absence of any record of lawful exportation;

• detail the sale agreement between the Art Museum and the sellers for the purchase of the Mask, including the obligation of the sellers to provide copies of applicable export and import licenses, and allege the breach of those obligations;

• advance allegations regarding the sellers’ knowledge of the falsity of the Mask’s supposed provenance, as well as information regarding the criminal history of the sellers, to suggest the illicit nature of the sale;

• describe the Museum’s merely pro forma “investigation” into the Mask’s provenance to support the inference that it knew or was willfully blind to the fact that the Mask was stolen property both before and after its importation; and

• offer citations to numerous other provisions of law, including but not limited to Egyptian [patrimony] law No. 215 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2314 and 2315 [the National Stolen Property Act], to bolster the conclusion that the Mask was imported into the United States 'contrary to law.'"

Federal attorneys further argue that "that the Museum apparently now concedes, for the first time on this Motion, that probable cause, not a preponderance of the evidence, is the ultimate trial burden that the United States will have to bear. The Museum also appears to agree that the United States should not have to allege 'the date, location, or motive behind the stealing, let alone the identity of the thief' in order to meet that burden, so long as it can establish that the Mask is 'stolen.' The Museum likewise appears to admit that an artifact is considered 'stolen' if its private ownership violates originating country’s patrimony laws."

Prosecutors add that SLAM does not correctly construe the law or the facts of the case. The U.S. Attorney's Office writes

"The Museum takes a detour, however, when it attempts to distinguish United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material on the ground that 'until 1983, there was no Egyptian law that unequivocally established Egyptian ownership of items like the Mask.' That claim is not only outside the face of the complaint; it is also incorrect. As the United States set out in its Motion to Strike the Museum’s claim for lack of standing, Egyptian law has provided for national ownership of cultural artifacts like the Mask since at least 1951. While it will ultimately be for the Court to determine whose interpretation of Egyptian law is correct, any such determination is a matter of law that did not need to be pled, and in fact was not pled, on the face of the complaint. Thus, any such contention of the Museum’s is beyond this Court’s consideration on this motion."

[Blogger's sidebar: United States of America v. One Lucite Ball containing Lunar Material (one Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque is a federal district court case where authorities successfully seized a moon rock originally given by President Richard Nixon to Honduras. The rock was bought for $50,000 by claimant Alan Rosen, who purchased the moon rock from a retired Honduran military officer. The moon rock went missing from the Honduran presidential palace during the 1990's. The case resulted in the forfeiture of the lunar rock to the federal government in 2003 after government lawyers argued that the rock was stolen from Honduras and smuggled into the United States in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)(1)(A), the same statute invoked in the Ka-Nefer-Nefer case.]

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

A federal judge sitting in the southern district court of New York yesterday denied a request by Sotheby's for a discovery conference. That decision came in the matter of United States v. A 10th Century Cambodian Sandstone Sculpture Located at Sotheby's in New York, New York.

The case involves an effort by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara to forfeit a Khmer statue known as the Duryodhana, claiming that the statue was stolen from a temple. Sotheby's placed the statue up for auction this spring. Now Sotheby's and Ruspoli di Poggio Suasa, who alleges that her husband purchased the statue in 1975 in the United Kingdom, are claimants in the forfeiture action.

In a case seemingly dominated by letters to the court--which are not easily accessible to the public as compared with the filing of formal motions--Sotheby's Inc. reportedly sent a letter to the court to ask for a discovery conference under Rule 37. That Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is generally used to compel discovery. The judge ruled: "Claimant Sotheby's Inc.'s letter request for a Rule 37.2 conference to seek the court's assistance with a discovery dispute regarding the production and translation of foreign law is DENIED."

Monday, May 14, 2012

Attorneys for the St. Louis Art Museum (SLAM) oppose reopening the case of United States v. Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer. Last week U.S. Attorney Richard Callahan's office urged the eastern district federal court in Missouri to reconsider its March 31 dismissal of the forfeiture case
launched to recover the mummy mask. SLAM's lawyers today filed their objection.

Mohammed Zakaria Goneim
originally excavated the 19th Dynasty mask at Saqqara, Egypt during the 1950's. The museum bought it on the antiquities market in 1998. Federal authorities say that the mask is illegal contraband, while the museum maintains that it is the owner of legitimate property.

St. Louis Art MuseumSource: Colin Faulkingham. Public Domain

SLAM's pleading argues that the district court should not reconsider its decision to dismiss the case, and the court should not permit the government to file a newly amended complaint. The museum's attorneys suggest that the government's remedy is to appeal the dismissal of the case to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals.

The museum's lawyers complain that federal prosecutors

did not state any new evidence that should reopen the case,

failed to explain any exceptional circumstances that would prompt a reexamination of the dismissal,

did not submit an amended complaint when it had the chance, and

failed to show that Egyptian law declared ownership over cultural property prior to 1983.

Several passages from SLAM's memorandum of law, quoted below with legal citations omitted, provide both a sketch and the flavor of the museum's arguments.

"In the Eighth Circuit, where an order dismisses a complaint for failure to state a claim but remains silent on whether the order is final, whether it dismisses the entire action, and whether the plaintiff has the right to amend, the entire action is dismissed.... The March 31st Order of this Court is silent ...: it does not state whether it is final, whether it dismisses the entire action, or whether the Government may appeal. As such, the Order was plainly a dismissal of the entire action."

"In its Motion for Reconsideration, the Government does not allege that it has discovered new evidence since the Court’s dismissal of this action that would warrant alteration or amendment of this Court’s Order. Instead, the Government offers evidence it 'could' now present evidence that could have been presented before the dismissal of this case. The Government had ample time between its decision to initiate this lawsuit and the dismissal of this action to provide evidence necessary to bolster its case, but has now missed its opportunity to do so."

"In its Motion for Reconsideration, the Government did not allege any exceptional circumstances that warrant a reexamination of the Court’s final judgment in this case. The Government has had a fair and full opportunity to offer evidence in opposition to Claimant Museum’s Motion to Dismiss, either in the Government’s responsive pleadings or by way of an amended complaint. In fact, the Government now brings to the Court the very same arguments it made in its responsive pleadings to the Claimant Museum’s Motion to Dismiss. Other channels of relief are available to the Government, as it has the option to seek redress from this Court’s Order by appeal to the Eighth Circuit. For all these reasons, this Court should deny the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration."

"The appropriate time for the Government to submit an amended Complaint was at some point during the nearly eleven months between the Claimant Museum’s Motion to Dismiss and the Court’s Order dismissing this action due to those very insufficiencies. Now, more than a year after the Museum first identified the deficiencies of the Verified Complaint, the Government offers only facts it 'could' include in an amended Complaint. But the Government stops there, without submitting a proposed amended Complaint, any documentary evidence of the additional facts the Government 'could' provide, or even a specific description in its Motion of what facts exist to cure the myriad defects identified by the Court."

"[O]ne of the marked deficiencies in this case [is that] until 1983, there was no Egyptian law that unequivocally established Egyptian ownership of items like the Mask. It is well settled that such a clear declaration of ownership is necessary before exportation of an article constitutes theft. The Government’s objection about being required to 'establish the date, location, or motive behind the stealing, let alone the identity of the thief' overstates what the court expected. In its Order, the Court used the absence of those very basic 'factual and logical steps' to illustrate the utter lack of any facts connecting the Mask’s absence from Egypt with its 'theft.'"

"[T]he Government in this case offered no facts regarding: the date (or even the year) of the theft; the place from which the Mask was stolen; the identity of the thief or thieves (or even so much as speculation as to the identity); the location of the Mask at any time between its suspected location in 1966 and its purchase by the Museum in 1998; the year in which the Mask was exported from Egypt; that there was any law enforcement investigation conducted and, if so, what it revealed; the chain or suspected chain of custody; the identity of any witnesses to either the theft, recording, transport, storage or possession of the Mask in the intervening three decades; or the Egyptian patrimony law that purportedly established Egypt’s ownership of the Mask."

"Nevertheless, the Government requests leave to amend its Verified Complaint. It is interesting that after more than six years during which the Museum has repeatedly sought--first from the Egyptian government, then from the United States government--any evidence suggesting theft or even that the Museum’s possession of the Mask was less than legitimate, the Government now hints at but still does not specify what additional facts may satisfy its burden. The Government has clearly had sufficient time, even within the time frame of this case, to amend its Verified Complaint to cure the deficiencies."

Sunday, May 13, 2012

The case of United States v. Victor Gordon appears on track for trial. The US District Court for the Eastern District of New York has issued a schedule that slates the trial for December 3, 2012. Motions are due in July.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Registration is now open for Cultural Property Law, part of Plymouth State University's Historic Preservation program. This graduate studies course examines the international, national, and state legal frameworks covering the protection and movement of cultural property.

This concentrated course starts July 3 and meets Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday over the course of two weeks. The final class is a field trip to a major museum.

The class meets in Concord, New Hampshire--an easy drive from Boston, Massachusetts and other points in New England.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Reopen the St. Louis Art Museum (SLAM) mummy mask case. That is what the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri is asking a federal district court judge to do. In a Motion to Reconsider filed today, U.S. Attorney Richard Callahan's office seeks to resurrect the case of United States v. Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer.

A judge dismissed the suit last month, claiming that the government's legal complaint to forfeit a mummy mask from SLAM was insufficient. The complaint failed to articulate how the mask was stolen and smuggled, or how it was brought into the United States "contrary to law," the court ruled.

But the prosecution says in today's motion that the complaint does not need to be more specific about how the mask was stolen or smuggled. And the government does not need to prove any more than probable cause to believe that the mummy mask was stolen.

Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Richard Finneran writes, "While it is true that the Verified Complaint does not disclose the identity of the thief, the exact date of the theft, or 'why' the Mask was stolen, it does allege circumstances that reasonably give rise to the inference that the Mask was unlawfully taken from Egypt’s possession without its permission, and is therefore 'stolen' property ...." The AUSA adds that "the United States . . . must merely establish probable cause to believe that the property is subject to forfeiture" then "the burden then shifts to the Museum to prove the lawful importation of the Mask by a preponderance of the evidence."

The prosecution describes that "one may rightfully infer the stealing of property without direct evidence of all the circumstances underlying the theft." An analogy is given: "If a homeowner were to return from a trip abroad to find that all of the electronics in his house were missing, it would certainly be reasonable for him to conclude that they had been stolen, even if he could not identify the thief or the exact time of the theft."

In its motion to reconsider, the prosecution also attempts to correct the court's conclusion that the government "should have alleged the [specific] law under which the Mask should be considered 'stolen.'" AUSA Finneran argues that "Section 1595a itself prohibits the importation of stolen property into the United States, regardless of whether any other law has been violated in the process of importation." That statute, 19 USC 1595a, states:

Merchandise which is introduced or attempted to be introduced into the United States contrary to law shall

be treated as follows:

(1) The merchandise shall be seized and forfeited

if it—

(A) is stolen, smuggled, or clandestinely imported

or introduced . . . .

The government says that its arguments are sufficient to renew the forfeiture case. But if not, prosecutors are asking the court to allow the filing of an amended complaint. AUSA Finneran writes that "the United States believes that an amended complaint could allege numerous alternative bases to believe that the Mask’s importation was 'contrary to law' . . . if such allegations are deemed necessary."

The prosecution says it can offer additional allegations in an amended, verified complaint: "Among other things, an amended complaint could more explicitly allege the approximate date range and location from which the Mask was stolen. It could also allege additional and alternative bases to believe that the Mask was imported 'contrary to law,' including facts relating to the absence of records and licenses reflecting the lawful import or export of the Mask, the content of the applicable Egyptian cultural property laws, and circumstances relating to the Museum’s purchase of the Mask from its seller. Finally, it could identify particular statutes, regulations, and provisions of foreign and common law which establish that the illegality of the Mask’s importation."

The prosecution draws the court's attention to the generally accepted principle that "[d]istrict courts routinely do not terminate a case at the same time that they grant a motion to dismiss; rather, they generally dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and give the plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend its complaint."UPDATE: SLAM's lawyers filed their objection to the government's motion to reconsider on May 14, 2012.

Salem
Alshdaifat’s attorney also filed an omnibus motion in the matter of U.S. v. Khouli et al. He claims that his client was a broker or middleman
who did not participate in the importation of the cultural objects that
are part of the criminal case. He seeks
to dismiss all counts of the indictment against Alshdaifat; suppress physical
and digital evidence; suppress post-arrest statements of his client; have an
evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual disputes related to the motions; compel
the government to produce expert witness discovery; provide notice of any “prior
bad acts” evidence; and have permission to join in motions filed by Joseph
A. Lewis, II.

Specifically, Alshdaifat contends
that the smuggling statute (18 U.S.C. § 545) is void for vagueness. Therefore, Alshdaifat cannot be prosecuted
under the statute. To quote from
Alshdaifat’s memo of law:

“The federal smuggling statute … has
been interpreted by federal courts to mean different things depending on where
a defendant conducts his business. Mr. Alshdaifat could not be charged with a
smuggling crime had the merchandise been mailed to New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or
Delaware because the Third Circuit has ruled since 1994 that Section 545 requires
an intent to deprive the United States of revenue. In this case, the merchandise involved in the
Section 545 offenses are classified as 'antiques,' and under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States, Heading 9706, they are duty free. Thus,
in the Third Circuit, there would be no crime here. However, in the Second
Circuit [covering New York], the Section 545 smuggling crime has been more expansively
interpreted to cover conduct beyond an intent to defraud the United States of
its right to revenue. Given that the courts cannot agree on the meaning of this
statute, ordinary people will find it difficult to understand what conduct is actually
prohibited by the statute.” (Citations omitted).

Alshdaifat’s lawyer adds that “the
current expansive interpretation in the Second Circuit of Section 545's ‘intent
to defraud’ provision is unconstitutionally vague,” requiring dismissal of
charges against the defendant.

Improper
venue is also argued as a basis for dismissing the charges. Counsel for Alshdaifat contends that points
of entry for certain goods that are the subject of the indictment are not
articulated, or that points of entry mentioned in the discovery materials specifically
relate to places outside the Eastern District of New York such as Manhattan or
Connecticut.

Alshdaifat’s motion additionally argues
that evidence must be suppressed that was derived from “defective” search
warrants granting seizure of emails.
Alshdaifat’s lawyer claims that one warrant lacked probable cause for
the government to believe that “evidence of a crime would be found within the
Alshdaifat Yahoo! e-mail account.” “This
request … was quite expansive and intrusive. It sought authorization
to search literally tens of thousands of e-mail communications of several individuals.” Alshdaifat’s
lawyer adds that the Magistrate issuing the warrant was “misled.” A second warrant authorizing the search and
seizure of emails must also be struck down, it is argued, because it is tainted by the fruits of the first search warrant.

Meanwhile, federal agents’ search of Alshdaifat’s Michigan home is alleged to be improper because the magistrate's warrant was
based on tainted evidence, the warrant was unconstitutionally overbroad, and
the agents who executed the warrant went beyond their authority. The evidence gathered must therefore be
suppressed.

Alshdaifat’s lawyer takes pointed
aim at statements made in the warrant affidavit by one Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) agent, which describe a past allegation of smuggling by
Alshdaifat in Detroit. “The Agent's
account of this incident is emblematic of the reckless way the government conducted
this investigation and how they repeatedly misreported information to force the
‘facts’ to fit their theory,” writes counsel. “The Agent's rendition of the
incident at Detroit Metro Airport with Mr. Alshdaifat should not contribute to
a probable cause showing to invade his home because it does not suggest crimes involving
violations of Customs laws or the National Stolen Property Act.” (Citations
omitted).

The manner in which federal agents
searched Alshdaifat’s home last year also earns scrutiny by legal counsel: “While the Warrant's Attachment specifically
limited the items to be seized to those ‘which are evidence of . . . art or
antiquities that were illegally imported,’ the searching agents took everything—every
last coin and trinket in the house. There was no attempt to connect these items
with evidenc[e] that they were illegally imported—none at all.”

Moreover, it is argued that statements
made by Alshdaifat to authorities should not be introduced at trial because the
defendant was represented by legal counsel when authorities questioned him
outside his home in Michigan. The
attorney writes that “Mr. Alshdaifat requested the opportunity to call his
lawyer, and was denied. Under these circumstances, Mr. Alshdaifat did not
voluntarily waive his right to have counsel present at his post-arrest
interview and his statements were far from voluntary. Moreover, because at the time of his arrest,
Mr. Alshdaifat was already under indictment in the Eastern District of New York
and represented by counsel on matters related to that indictment, the
government also violated his attached Sixth Amendment right to counsel.”
(Citations omitted).

The prosecution will have a
chance to respond to the omnibus motions filed by Lewis and Alshdaifat.

A federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern
District of New York indictedantiquities collector and businessman Lewis as well as ancient coin dealer Alshdaifat for their roles in an alleged antiquities trafficking conspiracy. They are presumed innocent. Their efforts appear more vigorous
now that a third co-defendant, antiquities dealer Mousa "Morris" Khouli, pleaded guilty last week. A fourth co-defendant, Ayman Ramadan, remains
a fugitive.

Joseph
Lewis’ lawyers seek to dismiss the case against their client; suppress evidence
seized by authorities from email accounts; dismiss specified counts of the
indictment; have the grand jury minutes reviewed by the court; seek to obtain
advance notice of any prior bad acts by Lewis that the prosecution may raise at
trial; and join arguments made by Alshdaifat’s attorney. Some of the arguments made by Lewis’ lawyers are
discussed here.

Lewis’
attorneys say that the evidence obtained by court issued search warrants must
be suppressed. The attorneys argue that affidavits
in support of searches of Lewis’ home and emails were misleading and contained
material omissions. “In each supporting
affidavit the government repeatedly presented exaggerated, conclusory
assertions and omitted contextually important material facts. Most blatantly, these affidavits painted Mr. Lewis
and the alleged conspirators as grave robbers trafficking in stolen property,
when the government knew that that was not true and more important, that it
lacked proof to support these allegations.”
For example the government “never disclosed the absence of proof that
any piece was stolen, preferring instead to create an aura that such proof did
exist.” The government also did not mention
anything about Lewis’ inquiries to Khouli, made in order to confirm the
provenance of an Egyptian coffin, instead implying that Lewis “asked [Mr. Mousa]
Khouli to create a false provenance ….” Had
the government presented a full picture of its evidence and not made improper
implications, Lewis’ attorneys contend that the “Magistrate Judge would have
been deeply troubled by the [search warrant] application …”

The
lawyers for Lewis protest that “the government baldly asserted . . . that ‘persons
who smuggle cultural property of questionable provenance into the United States
typically avoid detection by Customs by means of false statements . . . .” Lewis’ attorneys attack this line of
reasoning, in part, because they say that Lewis was never part of the
importation process of antiquities and because “hundreds of foreign antiquities
… lawfully exist throughout the United States despite their bearing explicitly
uncertain provenances.”

To
support their client’s claims, Lewis’ attorneys cite the recent dismissal of
the federal government’s forfeiture case in the matter of US. v. Mask of Ka Nefer Nefer: “[I]t has become the practice of the government
in the antiquities field [to make assertions] without regard for the truth as
was shown recently, when the government was badly rebuffed and excoriated in a
recent effort to seize an antiquity from the St. Louis Art Museum.”

Lewis’
attorneys also contend that federal agents acted beyond the scope of the warrant
authorizing a search of Lewis’ Virginia home last year. Instead of simply taking relevant antiquities—e.g.
a Greco Roman coffin, an Egyptian nesting coffin, limestone figures, and
funerary boats—as well as related items such as documents, the agents took
items well beyond what the warrant authorized.
The attorneys claim that the seizure of documents related to Lewis’
insect collection, personal documents, and more was outside the scope of the
warrant’s authority. The lawyers state
that “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents were inappropriately invited to
participate, undoubtedly contributing to the massive number of unrelated and
unauthorized seizures.” The only way to
cure the problem of an overly broad execution of a search warrant is to
suppress the evidence obtained by it, the lawyers argue.

Attorneys
for Lewis further argue that the case against their client should be dismissed
because of government excesses. They
urge the court to drop the criminal case against Lewis because of the alleged
misconduct described above, because of reckless media statements, and because of
selective prosecution. The attorneys say
that Lewis has been unfairly characterized in the press by government
misrepresentations, and that there is “an overall campaign to harm Joe Lewis” as
illustrated by “damaging accusations” made to CNN, The New York Times, and elsewhere.

Lewis
has also been unfairly targeted for prosecution, they say. “Indeed, outside of this case, the number of
traded antiquities with dubious , questionable or unknown provenances are too
numerous to count and yet none of those
sellers or buyers have been prosecuted based on questionable provenance
alone—the only factor here,” the lawyers argue. (Emphasis in the original). To further illustrate the claim, Lewis’
lawyers point to the lack of prosecution occurring in the Sotheby’s case involving
forfeiture of a Cambodian statue.

Legal
counsel also asks the court to dismiss the money laundering count against Lewis,
in part, because the charge is not based on Lewis paying money for the importation
of cultural property.

Because
Customs seized the components of an Egyptian nesting coffin in Newark, New
Jersey, the case should also be dismissed for improper venue. The court for the Eastern District of New
York does not cover cases arising in Newark, Lewis’ lawyers say.

Attorneys
for Lewis conclude by asking the court to review the transcript of the grand
jury session. Normally grand jury
proceedings are confidential. But the
attorneys state that the government’s excesses were so pervasive in this case that a judge should
review the testimony given to the grand jury.

2015 ABA Journal Blawg 100 Honoree

2014 ABA Journal Blawg 100 Honoree

2014 Daniel Webster International Lawyer of the Year award given to Rick St. Hilaire

"Rick St. Hilaire, who has become an authority on cultural heritage law, received the International Law Section’s 2014 Daniel Webster International Lawyer of the Year award at an Oct. 30 reception in Manchester, hosted by Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green." - NH Bar News, November 19, 2014

LexisNexis Top 25 Blogs

Top International Law Blogs

Rick St. Hilaire is among those featured in Josh Knelman's book, Hot Art

DISCLAIMER: This blog is for general information only. The information provided on this site should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it form an attorney-client relationship with the reader. While accuracy is strived for, the information presented here may not contain the most current legal developments. It is not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No warranty, either express or implied, is given by this site or its contents. There may be information presented that links to outside sources. These links are not intended to be an endorsement of these sites, their information, or their opinions. Comments or opinions made by others are their own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CHL or its author(s). This site is intended for informational purposes and is not attorney advertising. If you send an email to Cultural Heritage Lawyer, it will not form an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as confidential or privileged. You should not send confidential communications through this web site or via email.